Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 732 posts

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#611

Post by nradov »

jshen wrote: post #590
nradov wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Families mostly like to share photos. Facebook works far better than any messaging app for that use case.

Does it? I just opened Facebook, scrolled for a while, and didn’t see any family photos. I saw a bunch of lizard brain short videos of people fighting in road rage incidents, attractive women dancing and such, airsoft gun games (no idea why Facebook thinks I’d like this), and other similar types of things not related to my family. I actually liked Facebook when it mostly showed me photos of friends and family, but I’…

The feed really depends on what you have reacted to in the past. I routinely "hide all from" most pages and friends-of-friends so I mostly only see original content from friends and family.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#612

Post by hotpotamus »

naasking wrote: post #606
hotpotamus wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which party claims to be all about individual responsibility and law and order? Perhaps the conservatives’ embrace of post modernist nihilism has consequences beyond themselves?

I could just as easily ask you which party claims to be about justice, fairness and democracy? Let's not mince words, politicians of all stripes are largely opportunistic and self-serving, and that's what the evidence is suggesting. There is not as much difference between either side on that point.

Ok, what would one party have to do to prove they are better than the other?

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#613

Post by cf141q5325 »

jablongo wrote: post #153
cf141q5325 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While its easy to talk from outside the US, I am honestly a lot less worried about the content and a lot more about the fact that it is a non trivial question whether or not the son of the leader of the free world is a crack user. Reality and all this fake news stuff got weird fast. Which wasnt really surprising if you look at the upcoming clusterfuck of cheap realistic video simulations. After getting there already…

Your comment is rambling and borderline incoherent but it also has moments of greatness.

Its unfortunate that you were downvoted, i do agree with the borderline incoherent rambling. Its what lead me to the conclusion in the edit.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#614

Post by cywick »

josephcsible wrote: post #555
projektfu wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law protects small sites, too. It also makes users responsible for their own words, which is legitimate. Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. You could "hack" the law by saying it only applies to companies with market cap less than 100bn. This is how some laws have been written in the past to specifically jeopardize p…

> Without 230, Facebook would become liable for defamation lawsuits unless it basically censored everything but the most bland content. > making Facebook liable for defamation as a publisher will just kill the platform entirely and that's not what these users actually want. What the law should be changed to say is something like " if you censor any legal content based on its message , you become liable for everything…

It sounds like you have never been a moderator for an online community of at least moderate size.

If you've never been in that role, it's easy to not only underestimate the sheer amount of garbage that you need to remove, so regular users won't be turned off and leave, but also the dedication and finesse of some of the trolls, who love nothing more than asymptotically approaching that line, without ever fully crossing it.

What you propose is effectively giving these guys a doomsday device (i.e., "if you censor me erroneously, your platform will be dead"). In that scenario, there is a 0% chance that a place like Facebook would not turn into an absolute cesspool.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#615

Post by jshen »

nradov wrote: post #611
jshen wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? I just opened Facebook, scrolled for a while, and didn’t see any family photos. I saw a bunch of lizard brain short videos of people fighting in road rage incidents, attractive women dancing and such, airsoft gun games (no idea why Facebook thinks I’d like this), and other similar types of things not related to my family. I actually liked Facebook when it mostly showed me photos of friends and family, but I’…

The feed really depends on what you have reacted to in the past. I routinely "hide all from" most pages and friends-of-friends so I mostly only see original content from friends and family.

I never told it to show me short form video of random things not related to my family and friends. I also never reacted to it. The idea that FB is about staying in touch with family, and that it's the best way to do that, is absurd when you look at what FB is today.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#616

Post by jshen »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #503
hackinthebochs wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But censorship isn't about treating something differently. They have no duty to be neutral. Censorship is about preventing a certain kind of speech. They did not do this.

I don't really understand what you are saying. That if something isn't 100% blocked it isn't censored? But censorship isn't about treating something differently. Yes it is. Not just treating it differently, but treating it differently and negatively based on the content. Suppressing a story or speech based on the content. They have no duty to be neutral. Legally, no duty. Morally, I think most people would say Facebo…

If I publish a book, and the local Barnes and Noble doesn’t carry it, that’s not censorship or suppression, right? I see FB as the same thing, choosing not to distribute something is not censorship or suppression unless we dilute the meaning of those words to the point that they don’t mean a whole lot.

Also, Facebook has deleted things that are overtly sexual for as long as I can remember. I find it odd that all of the people complaining about “censorship” never complain about that or think through the implications of what their framework would mean when applied to that.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#617

Post by papito »

colordrops wrote: post #581
papito wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, like, not completely make up stuff about "stolen elections"?

Why don't you just come out and say that you believe censorship is a good thing because it protects us from bad guys? Just because you believe it's a good thing doesn't mean it's not still censorship.

Multiple outlets are dedicated to regurgitating repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories and misinformation. What "censorship" are you even talking about?

MSNBC not letting some nut job go on the air to spew garbage in prime time is their basic right as a business. You don't have any God-given privilege to sit in that chair, nor anyone else.

The government, the government is not stopping any of this, which would be actual censorship.

It's just startling to me that someone on HackerNews, of all places, does not know the absolutely elementary difference between moderation by a private company and government-filtered speech.

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#618

Post by mgraczyk »

pegasus wrote: post #282
mgraczyk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between this and a moderator on Reddit manually deleting a post?

This would be more like shadow banning but in a way that can never be proven, or even detected in the first place. The post would just be surfaced less. Since there's no visibility on what gets surfaced when, it's a way to nudge public opinion on different issues without any accountability.

You can do this on Reddit. People do it all the time

https://www.reddit.com/r/modhelp/comments/1px939/hiding_post...

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#619

Post by mgraczyk »

im3w1l wrote: post #266
mgraczyk wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference between this and a moderator on Reddit manually deleting a post?

If a moderator deletes a post someone else can post it again. If you create an automatic rule to prevent that then it's algorithmic.

Sure I agree with that if we want to define "algorithm" in such a way that "if (url.contains('sex')) ban()" is "censorship by the algorithm"

I just don't think that's a useful definition. You should just say "Facebook is censoring the content".

Re: Zuckerberg says FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship

#620

Post by mgraczyk »

arinlen wrote: post #306
mgraczyk wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm"

> What I'm saying is that this is a heuristic, not an algorithm, and that you should blame Facebook, not "the algorithm" Anyone who ever had any direct contact with implementing heuristics would call bullshit on this take. Some heuristics don't even return the same result twice. Now the guy that presses the button is supposed to be held responsible for what comes out of that crapshoot?

I implemented heuristics like this one at Facebook. It's not bullshit, I even know how this particular one was implemented. In this case there is some non-determinism but the false positive rate is very low and the false negative rate also very low.
Post reply on HN